Dean supported Clark's Bombing of Serbia

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

Dean also supported Clinton's bombing of Iraq, and the sanctions in Iraq that killed more people than Bush's current invasion (so far).

"Dean, who has been mischaracterized as the reincarnation of George McGovern, is certainly no traditional liberal or even a traditional dove. "I told the peace people not to fall in love with me," he told me over breakfast in Manchester, N.H., last week. He said he had opposed Vietnam, but he had supported the first Gulf War, the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the war in Afghanistan. In the 1980s he had "mixed feelings" about Ronald Reagan's support for the contras in Nicaragua and opposed a unilateral nuclear freeze. "I'm not a pacifist. I believe there are times when pre-emptive force is justified, but there has to be an immediate threat, and there just wasn't in this case."

Dean is being deceptive here - there was NO immediate threat to the US in Gulf War I, there was NO immediate threat to the US in Nicaragua, and there was NO threat to the US in Bosnia and Kosovo, so obviously that is not really his criteria. A more reasonable assumption would be that Dean supports wars that are POPULAR with the American people - GWI, he opposes wars that are unpopular - Vietnam - and is of course using anti-war sentiment about this war Gulf War II - to run for president.

http://marinfordean.org/article_text.asp?articleid=95

Howard Dean represents the STATUS QUO on war. If you are against the current wars, you should vote for Dennis Kucinich who is the ONLY one that consistently opposes US wars.

[ibegurpard]

1. So did I.

It was not a unilateral operation...it was in conjunction with NATO and the United Nations. We weren't lied to about WHY it was being done.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. We were told that Saddam had WMD destruction

That was the rationale for bombing Iraq wasn't it? The same rationale that Bush is using today, right?

On edit: Sorry, I guess you're talking about Kosovo - I think we were lied to about why it was being done, but that's a different thread.

[maha]

14. You don't seem to know much about Kosovo.

Although people opposed to the war in Kosovo managed to spread a lot of false information to cloud the issues, the reasons given to the American people for going after Milosevic were not lies. You might have disagreed with those reasons, but they weren't lies.

[HFishbine]

18. or Iraq

We went to war against Iraq the first time because they had invaded a sovereign nation and ally.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

41. Two words: April Gillespie

I don't think you know much about Iraq, or Kosovo, for that matter.

[maha]

55. I remember her quite well, actually.

She is an idiot. Gillespie's screwup doesn't mean Bush I wanted Hussein to invade Kuwait. I rather doubt that he did.

[Fixated]

2. ....

Precisely. Also, there was an utter lack of U.S. casualties.

[Abe Linkman]

4. That's right. Dean is a status-quo Clinton-type.

It is amazing to contemplate the huge numbers of people who are going to be very disillusioned if Dean gets into the WHouse. But, he won't be right-wing enough to keep the Republican dogs off his back. So, he'll have to compromise from a middle of the road position; not from a progressive position.

[clar]

9. Most of Dean's supporters

know precisely where he stands on this issue. He's been very clear about it.

As for Kucinich, he holds no appeal for me, despite the fact that I'm a liberal.

[maha]

5. In that case, Kucinich is a fool.

Only a fool opposes ALL wars. Every now and then one comes along that you really have to fight.

Fortunately, once we get past the New Hampshire primary DK will no doubt be forced to withdraw from the race and we won't have to put up with this nonsense any more.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. If the US was attacked, I doubt Kucinich would be against a defensive war

In fact, I doubt he was against attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan after 911, but he probably did come out against the public war plan we were told about - massive civilian casualties and refugees - which turned out not to be the case (for the most part)

[maha]

10. It's not always simple.

In other words, you think Dennis might have been in favor of a war just as long as it didn't hurt people?

The problem with warfare -- and this is something the Bushies don't get, either -- is that wars kill a lot of people and the killing cannot be contained so that "innocents" don't get hurt. Wars can be conducted in ways that reduce civilian casualties (Clark argued for such tactics in Kosovo but was overruled), but once you make the decision to go to war, you are deciding to kill innocent men, women, and children, and that's the way it is. That's one reason not to go into war lightly. But a person who doesn't have the stomach for making such decisions should not be president.

I was in favor of going into Afghanistan. The mistake the Bushies made was that they didn't send in enough troops in a timely manner. Most of the Taliban and al Qaeda got away. We should have hit them harder and faster. Would Dennis have done that? Or would he have wimped out and let the bad guys get away? Presidents can't be wimps.

In regard to Kosovo, I had thought somebody should go after Milosevic for at least a decade before we finally did it -- many, many lives would have been saved if he'd been shut down sooner. But NATO made a decision, finally, that Milosevic had to be challenged before he destabilized a large part of Europe. Even though Milosevic was no threat to the U.S., had we shunned our NATO commitments it could hurt us in the future when we might need help from NATO. Alliances are like that. So I favored the war in Kosovo, although I was very unhappy about the tactics used that saved soldier lives at the expense of civilians lives.

That being said, I cannot respect people who take any knee-jerk approach to the subject of when or when not to go to war. Each situation must be judged on its own merits. But once you decide to go to war, you have to go to war, and there isn't a soft, gentle, nice way to do that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Would You Support War If Iran Put Landmines In The Persian Gulf

and choked off more than half of the world's oil supplies?

[maggrwaggr]

22. there would be ways to deal with that short of war

that could easily escalate into war, but war should always be a last resort.

Laying landmines in the persian gulf should not result in instant war.

[maha]

57. No, but it might.

And a situation like that can easily lead to a VERY difficult decision for a president. Decisions of when to go to war are often very, very difficult ones that will be second-guessed for eternity. Another reason why the presidency is no job for wimps or ideological purists.

[Padraig18]

36. If they mined the Straits of Hormuz, yes... n/t

[JackRiddler]

23. So what's Switzerland's secret?

And what would be wrong with a world full of Switzerlands?

[maha]

58. Banks.

Switzerland stayed out of WWII by paying off the Nazis, for example, although if the rest of Europe had fallen Switzerland would have gone, too.

[Brian Sweat]

143. Switzerland enjoys peace and prosperity provided by other nations

All good nations had a duty to oppose the evil that was Nazi Germany. Instead of opposing Nazi Germany, Switzerland developed a profitable relationship even trading in good looted from the people murdered in the concentration camps.


A world full of countries truly committed to peace would be great, but we don't live in a world full of countries committed to peace. Sticking you head in the sand and pretending like you don't have to get involved when some of these countries who are not committed to peace act out is just asking for trouble.

[no name no slogan]

27. A fool? Hardly

Don't forget that Kucinich voted in favor of using any force necessary to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. However, he did not support Afghanistan or the Iraq invasion.

People seem to forget a lot of the details of our current wars if they get dropped or ignored by "the official history".

How many people were aware that Saddam Hussein had told the Bush I administration that he was unilaterally withdrawing from Kuwait 24 hours before the US invasion? Most of the Iraqi troops were retreating at the time they were killed by the allied forces-- remember the "Thunder Road" that ran north from Kuwait City, and the busloads of retreating conscripts that were killed?

However, Bush I said it was "too late" for Iraq to withdraw, and that since he had his war plan ready to go, the allies were going to invade anyway.

And what happened after "Desert Storm"? Massive amounts of US troops were deployed to Saudi Arabia, infuriating a number of religious wackos who felt that any infidels in the holy land meant war. Among them, Osama bin Laden, who moved his Al-Qaeda operation to Afghanistan and started bombing US targets. And we all know what happened then.

So, if you connect the dots, you can see that our little war in the Gulf in 1990-1991 led (more or less) directly to the 9/11 attacks, and our quagmires in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, tell me again, why was it a good reason to attack Iraq, although a diplomatic settlement was within reach?

[maha]

59. FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL FOOL

"Don't forget that Kucinich voted in favor of using any force necessary to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. However, he did not support Afghanistan or the Iraq invasion."

In other words, he was NOT in favor of using "any force necessary," just any force that didn't mess with his ideological purity.

I want to thank you Kucinich supporters for continuing to prove to me what a disaster DK would make as president.

Now, please note this very carefully: Afghanistan and Iraq are two very different situations. Afghanistan was necessary. Iraq was not. Got that? Thanks.

When I see people fudge the two together, as you do, I assume I am dealing with people who are short of critical thinking skills.

And, yes, I am fully aware of the history of the Iraq War (full disclosure: my memory goes back to the Eisenhower Administration, so I am fully aware of quite a lot of things you may never have heard of) and the connection between the troops on Saudi soil and 9/11. But since we can't go back and re-do the past, what would President Kucinich have done had he been president on September 11, 2001?
Would he have refused to go into Afghanistan after al Qaeda because it might have gotten messy?

[Tinoire]

113. Your post reinforces the perception that many Clark supporters are war

Your post reinforces the perception that many Clark supporters are war are war apologists.

All the Lieberman supporters seem to have shifted to Clark... How strange... So many metamorphoses and just in time for this election...

Afghanistan and Iraq are two very different situations. Afghanistan was necessary. Iraq was not. Tell that to the dead Afghans- or better yet, save it for Osama, whenever we find him. I hear he's hanging out with the WMDs, personally escorting them to all the countries we need to attack.

Kucinich is not the fool. The only fools are the war apologists who don't understand that with war, everybody loses.

[LSdemocrat]

6. I also supported most of the above actions

You also misstate Dean's justification of the first Gulf War. He supported it because one of our allies had been attacked.

[Larkspur]

8. IN 1991, Saddam invaded Kuwait and Kuwait was one of our allies

so we did have a moral responsibility to fight Saddam then. And if Saddam went through Kuwait to Saudi Arabia, he threatened our oil supply and that would have national security implications.

Gulf War I was a legitamate war. Our allies and the UN supported us. In fact our allies paid for about 80% of the costs of that war.

And Dean has never mischaracterized himself as McGovern. The press did that. Dean has said repeatedly that he's not a pacifist, but he will send our military into wars when situations threaten the United States or to prevent or alleviate a humanitarian crisis, such as what is going on in Liberia.

As far as Serbia, genocide was going on there, and that is a humanitarian crisis which fits Dean's criteria for employing our military.

[Abe Linkman]

15. U.S. wanted its client Saddam to invade Kuwait & encouraged him to

It's a long story, but the basic facts which support the above, are freely available.

[maha]

17. This is controversial.

I've read the arguments pro and con. I don't buy the argument that Bush I "wanted" Saddam Hussein to attack Kuwait. There was a lot of miscommunication, certainly, and maybe he did, but you can't say it's a proven tact.

[gully]

11. So did Kerry, what's your point?

:shrug:

[SWPAdem]

12. Bookmarking

for the "Clark is a war criminal" crowd. Thanks!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

34. If Clark is a war criminal, so is Clinton and most elected Democrats

What pisses me off is Clark gets hammered for doing the dirty work while rich connected Democrats use their campaigns to attack him for doing the dirty work that they ordered. This woudl mean that NO military person who has served in combat is "eligible" for a Democratic position, but the civilians that ordered and promoted the war are a-okay. Disgusting.

I'm voting for Kucinich, but as a long time unofficial member of the Draft Clark movement, I'll sure as hell vote for Clark over Dean or Kerry.

[Tinoire]

45. You know I am totally in agreement with you about the hyposcrisy

Which is why, no matter how much I hammer Clark, I will not give a free ride to those who, behind the scenes, supported these obscenities. I was in the Army for 20 years and I know all too well about this clean hands/dirt hands business.

Kerry lost BIG points in my book for all his enabling and Dean lost BIG points for having said he was in favor of this and also because of what he said about the Middle East- to include his statements on Afghanistan, Syria and Iran.

We are hypocrites if we are not consistent.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

112. that's my objection

It pisses me off that the politicians and businessmen who profit from the wars have to gall to attack the soldiers who follow their orders and do the dirty work. It's beyond disgusting, and it's a serious case of class war too, just look at who fights the wars and who orders them fought.

[Tinoire]

137. You won't hear a peep out of me on that matter

If anything, the politicians who support these wars yet have the gall to go to church every Sunday , or synagogue every Saturday, sicken me much more so.

Unless you say NO, your hands are just as dirty. And this applies to the voting public also.

[TLM]

67. Still waiting for your proof that Clinton ordered/designated targets

You say that if a Commander bombs civilians and is guilty of war crimes, then the CIC is also guilty.

I want to see where CLinton ordered clark to bomb civilians centers, civilian infrastructure, journalists etc.

Where's a link to Clinton giving that order?

If Clinton gave such an order, I would agree he should be brought up on charges for war crimes.

However it looks more like Clinton set an over all agenda, and Clark took it upon himself to start killing civilians to try and accomplish that goal.

[Tinoire]

99. Normally the CIC doesn't set the targets

but I will say that he was aware because Kucinich, Tom Campbell and others spoke out against this at length (in a praiseworthy bi-partisan effort which we also saw for the Iraq war though the ration was inversed due to Party loyalty):

That is why I voted my support for President Clinton's initiatives and for the use of American soldiers in keeping the peace in the region.

Yet NATO is now engaged in a bombing campaign in which the destruction of the civilian infrastructure of Yugoslavia has become part of the strategy to end the war on Kosovo. We say our quarrel is with President Slobodan Milosevic and his army, yet instead of doing all that we can to directly confront that military we are bringing down terror on the Serbian people. What has this bombing accomplished? It has not stopped the ethnic cleansing or the grim procession of hundreds of thousands of refugees.

So I must challenge NATO's justification for its military campaign against civilians -- before we destroy all the bridges in Belgrade and Novi Sad; before we obliterate the power plants, water systems, roads and telecommunications centers that serve civilian populations; before we begin hearing the the phrase "collateral damage" routinely. Otherwise, NATO's actions will destabilize the region for decades to come.

http://www.diaspora-net.org/food4thought/kucinich.htm

IN MY CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE, I read the latest reports concerning a recent Executive Order that hands the CIA a black bag in the Balkans for engineering a military coup in Serbia, for interrupting communications, for tampering with bank accounts, freezing assets abroad, and training the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in terrorist tactics, such as how to blow up buildings.

How this is intended to help establish a democracy in Serbia or Kosovo hasn't yet been explained. Nor has the failure to substantially disarm and demilitarize the KLA been explained. Nor has the reverse ethnic cleansing taking place in Kosovo by the KLA while NATO rules the provinces been explained.

But the extracurricular activity is consistent with NATO's policy of the ends justifying the means, of might makes right, of collective guilt, of retribution upon a civilian population.

<snip>

As the death toll began to mount, I thought of times when I rode trains in Europe and wondered what it would be like to be traveling to work or to visit relatives while, 15,000 feet above, a sophisticated targeting system was locking into the approaching bridge, and suddenly it is as if dozens of people never even existed. And who was taking responsibility for all of this? What was the purpose of any of it? Why did civilians in Serbia and Kosovo have to die in air attacks? Who made that decision?

I thought NATO was a defensive organization. At least that's what its charter said. But NATO's war moved along like a giant unconscious force. Soon NATO was prepared to blockade Russian ships in Montenegro's harbor, prompting Vladimir Lukin of the Yabloko party to warn that such an action was "a direct path to nuclear escalation." He didn't have to say it. There were numerous quiet discussions taking place around Washington and across the country of people who were beginning to sense that NATO was out of control. They understood that NATO was moving into that fuzzy circumference of high violence where the possibility of nuclear war, on purpose or by accident, was beginning to be real.

WORKED WITH several members of Congress, building opposition to giving the President war powers authority. The decisive moment was April 28. On that day, the House of Representatives voted, in a test of the War Powers Act, not to give the Administration full authority in the war, including the ability to use ground troops. This single vote may well have been the turning point of the war. The White House and Democratic leaders held a relentless series of meetings to lobby for the war, including small focus groups with members of Congress, caucus meetings, and whip meetings to organize floor counts and check and recheck the vote. They were stunned when the vote ended in a tie, defeating the measure and forcing the Administration to look toward diplomatic channels to end the conflict.

NATO's unbridled escalation of the air war, with its risk of World War III, caused an unlikely coalition of eleven Congressional Representatives, six Republicans, four Democrats (including myself), and one Independent to travel to Vienna, Austria, to meet with leaders of the Russian Duma to try to create a framework for a peace agreement. That Russia was essentially dealt out of a Balkan resolution was made obvious by the U.S. refusal to submit the Kosovo crisis to the U.N. Security Council. As NATO strove to keep its distance from Russia, it became clear that Russia, through its Slavic cultural ties, its Orthodox religious traditions, and its economic relationship, presented a possible opening toward peace.

http://www.progressive.org/kuc899.htm

[Padraig18]

16. Correction: Misleading topic

Dean supported NATO'S bombing. Typical 'never pass up an opportunity to bash' post... :eyes:

[maha]

19. Thanks; you are right.

Clark wanted to use fewer bombs and more ground troops, so it's dishonest to call it "Clark's bombing."

[TLM]

70. No it isn't Clark was the commander who ordered the bombings.

They were Clark's bombings...

CLark also WANTED the brits to attack the russians, and suggested bombing russian ships and pipelines.

[maha]

83. He was ordered to order the bombings.

He argued for another strategy that would have involved fewer bombings and fewer civilian casualties but would have put more soldiers' lives at risk. He lost the argument.

[TLM]

89. He was ordered to wage an air war, and told no ground troops...

however at no point that I know of was he ordered to bomb civilian targets.

That decision was Clarks. And it is one he openly defended.

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

[maha]

97. Explain to me

... how bombs would have been dropped during that campaign AT ALL and not killed civilians? The Serb military was not off camping in the countryside, as I remember. They had taken over civilian facilities.

[TLM]

104. Some civilians would have been killed, true...

any war has civilian deaths... however Clark specificaly targeted civilian centers to inflict "economic" damage. THe types of bombs they dropped, like cluster bombs, and the targets they picked were the issue. Not only did they kill civilians, destroy civilian infrastructure, but they didn;t stop serb forces. Look what the UN human rights commissioner said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Yet once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

Nato does not dispute the Serb claim that just 13 of its tanks were destroyed in Kosovo - a figure which gives an altogether different meaning to the concept of proportionality. Nato fought a military campaign from the air which failed to achieve its stated objectives.

[jiacinto]

20. So you are opposed to all war

I guess that you would have allowed Hitler to kill the Jews.

[JackRiddler]

24. Just keep Hitler out of this already...

Why did the U.S. enter World War II? Not to save the Jews, that's for sure.

The only reason any country on the Allied side (except for France & Britain) entered WW2 was that they were attacked by one of the Axis powers. France & Britain entered because they had a defense arrangement with Poland, which was invaded. (But they didn't do anything concrete until they were invaded by Germany, too!)

So you have no case to present WW2 as some kind of humanitarian war. It was that in practice, but not at all in intent. The U.S. was attacked - for the only time in the 20th century, I believe - and it responded appropriately.

ON EDIT: I confess, I have occasionally reached for the old reliable Hitler metaphor, too. Smack me on the fingers with a stick, I shouldn't do that!

[no name no slogan]

33. We never would have had WWII if not for WWI

World War II was a direct outgrowth of the treaties signed at the end of World War I. The Allies of WWI humiliated the Central Powers with the various peace treaties signed-- Germany in particular.

Not only was Germany required to disarm, it also had to pay steep reparations to the French and British, which crippled its economy and turned it into an economic basket case. As we all know from history, this type of situation is ripe pickings for a fascist dictatorship to form. And the rest, unfortunately, is history.

[maha]

60. Yes, but

We can't go back and undo the past. The people who had to deal with Axis aggression in 1941 didn't have the luxury of telegraphing an apology to Kaiser Wilhelm to call off World War II.

It is nearly always the case in human history that the karma of war causes the next war. That doesn't negate the fact that sometimes wars show up that have to be fought.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. No jiacinto you are wrong

I am not against all wars, nor did I ever say that I was. Sorry that you were so utterly wrong.

[maha]

62. In other words

You might be willing to get into a hypothetical war that meets some criteria of cleanliness and un-ambiguity, but actual wars are not your thing.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

68. maha, you are arguing with someone else, not me

"You might be willing to get into a hypothetical war that meets some criteria of cleanliness and un-ambiguity, but actual wars are not your thing."

I have no idea what you are talking about, especially the "criteria of cleanliness and un-ambiguity" part, which as far as I know is never the case in war.

What is your point?

[maha]

86. If you are the one who started this thread

then I am arguing with you. Sorry if I'm way over your head, but them's the breaks.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

92. you're arguing with a strawman

first you accuse me of being against all wars, than you accuse me of being against all "messy" wars - neither of which I said anything remotely close to.

That's called arguing with a strawman, which you are doing quite well. You've just demolished that strawman in the argument, and he never said a word. Good job!

[maha]

98. I agree.

You are a strawman. Couldn't have said it better.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

100. the above exchange speaks for itself

when you find the person who is against all wars, or against the messy ones (make up your mind) let me know. That person is not me.

[maggrwaggr]

21. So did I, what's your point?

Dean's always made it clear he's not a pacifist. He's said that over and over.

I, too, supported action against Milosevich. I hated that guy. My argument was if you saw somebody beating up some little old lady on the corner, you didn't stand around arguing who should do something about it. You just had to jump in and take care of it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

38. My point is: Why are Dean's supporters attacking Clark for doing what Dean

wanted? Dean supported the Kosovo war, and now we have Dean's campainers filling up DU with half-truths and disingenuous opposition to Clark's war, while their own candidate SUPPORTED it.

This is typical - Clark, the working class American, follows orders from the rich, and then the rich wash their hands and refuse to take responsibility. It's disgusting and makes me remember why I don't like the Democratic party (I don't, I just like the GOP a lot less).

[stickdog]

39. Yep. And the German people are blame for the Holocaust.

Not Hitler.

Not the SS.

Not the Nazi party.

But the German people.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

47. Is Clinton a war criminal?

You should answer that question. If Clark is a war criminal, than Clinton is too.

And if you're going to make analogies about Hitler, that would make Dean a regional governor that publically supported the Holocaust.

[TLM]

73. Did Clinton designate civilian targets?

Did Clinton give orders to bomb civilian targets?

IF so, yes he's a war cirminal.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

69. wrong again, maha

try arguing with me, and my posts, as opposed to whatever "prisine personage" who are talking about.

If you have read any of my posts over the last year or more, you would know I am a current Kucinich supporter and an early member of Draft Clark.

[maha]

94. I knew you were a Kucinich supporter.

I could tell. And you are the one who started this thread. And you are the one who lacks the moral courage to admit that knee-jerk pacifism is a bankrupt position.

So Dean supported the NATO action in Kosovo. Wesley Clark was commanding general in Kosovo. He did what he had to do, which was engage in warfare, which is an ugly thing. On the whole, the war in Kosovo had a positive result, but honorable people can disagree on whether the war in Kosovo needed to be fought. I understand that.

However, you are trying to use Kosovo to malign the moral characters of Dean and Clark, and that is dishonest and immature.

And, yes, wars are nasty and they kill people, and we'd like not to have wars, but in the real, grown up world sometimes people have to fight for a lot of reasons.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

102. you are having a knee jerk problem

I'm defending Clark from underhanded attacks by Dean supporters, who are accusing Clark or war crimes and murder and worse, probably for the purpose of scaring away liberals from voting for Clark, and keeping up the false impression that Dean is "anti-war".

"However, you are trying to use Kosovo to malign the moral characters of Dean and Clark, and that is dishonest and immature."

That is a bald faced lie, and you know it. Goodbye.

[TLM]

72. Dean supported intervention to stop the ethnic slaughter...

fully 80% of which took place AFTER the NATO bombing campaign started.

Clark's bombing of civilians didn't stop shit.


You are trying to say it is OK that Clark bombed civilians and journalsist because Dean supported an intervention. Which is like saying that Clark beating a child to death is OK, because Dean supports spanking.

You are really desperate for something, anything, to shift focus off the horrible things CLark did, and try to slime Dean with CLark's war crimes.

Your whole argument boils down to "Dean is just as bad." Which is flat out bullshit.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

85. thanks for making the point

Dean loved the war, and supported it, as long as it wasn't messy, and Dean didn't actually have to get killed or do any killing. And now, afterwards, you can cluck at the ugliness that is always a part of war. I can hear it now - "I wanted you to bomb the bad guys, not get any US soldiers killed, and no civilian casualties - and all under budget too."

Again, it's rank hypocrisy. If you think Clark bombed the TV stations without authorization from Clinton and NATO, you're only fooling yourself. Same with the Chinese embassy.

I'm not sliming Dean with any of Clark's war crimes. Dean is a second rate conservative politician that has no experience with war (he was skiing remember) and no experience of foreign policy. He's never done anything to make him a good candidate for president really - but I don't think Dean committed any war crimes on the slopes in Vermont, I'll give him that.

I just think it's a shame that Dean's supporters would trash Clark for winning a war, and at the same time try to get him as VP for Dean. What a crock.

[TLM]

101. You are trying so hard to slime Dean with Clark's crimes...

"Dean loved the war, and supported it, as long as it wasn't messy, and Dean didn't actually have to get killed or do any killing. And now, afterwards, you can cluck at the ugliness that is always a part of war. I can hear it now - "I wanted you to bomb the bad guys, not get any US soldiers killed, and no civilian casualties - and all under budget too."


How about just waging war according to the Geneva Convention? You try to spin the act of NOT BOMBING CIVILIANS as some rich boy fantasy sophistry that poor Clark was forced to Deal with... as if not bombing TV stations and market places is somehow tying the man's hands behind his back.


"If you think Clark bombed the TV stations without authorization from Clinton and NATO, you're only fooling yourself. Same with the Chinese embassy."

Then I'm sure you can cite that information. Last I checked Clark was tossed out on his ass for not doing what the military leadership was telling him to do. I've not seen anything that says Clinton ordered the bombing of civilian targets or designated the targets Clark was to attack. Please cite any information you have to the contrary... or you can just try to change the subject to Dean.


"I'm not sliming Dean with any of Clark's war crimes."

Yes you are, you are responding to the FACT Clark bombed civilians by saying Dean supported the war... as if supporting the war means supporting the war crimes committed by Clark.

Just a wild guess, but I bet Dean supported the war under the assumption that it would be waged in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Too bad Clark had other ideas.



"Dean is a second rate conservative politician that has no experience with war (he was skiing remember) "

Other than his brother being murdered in Vietnam... oops.


"and no experience of foreign policy."

More foreign policy experience than Clinton, Carter, Reagan, or either Bush had when they took office. And what foreign policy experience does Clark have, other than blowing people up?



"He's never done anything to make him a good candidate for president really "

Civil Unions, balanced budgets, success by six, healthcare, environmental protection, etc. Yeah you right, next to a guy who was a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger when he wasn't blowing up TV stations and hospitals, Dean is just a steaming pile of crap.


"I just think it's a shame that Dean's supporters would trash Clark for winning a war,"

Clark didn't win shit...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

Yet once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

Nato does not dispute the Serb claim that just 13 of its tanks were destroyed in Kosovo - a figure which gives an altogether different meaning to the concept of proportionality. Nato fought a military campaign from the air which failed to achieve its stated objectives.



"and at the same time try to get him as VP for Dean. What a crock."

I no longer have any desire to see Clark anywhere on the Dem ticket. I will not vote for him as president if he gets the nomination.

[maha]

95. Which Dean supporters are attacking Clark because of Kosovo?

All I see are Kucinichistas attacking everyone who isn't as morally pure as they are.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

105. look at post 101 maha

"All I see are Kucinichistas attacking everyone who isn't as morally pure as they are."

Point to a post, if you want ...

[TLM]

120. I am... right here.

I was very excited about Clark until I started reading up on him and looking passed the hype.

I found some scary stuff in the Guardian and counterpunch.org.

Like Clark openly defending the choice to kill journalists and civilians...

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

[Taxi Driver]

25. Dean is innacurately portrayed as 21st Century McGovern?

Actually McGovern had blood on his hands since he supported and voted in favor of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. He voted it for sheer opportunism as a Hubert Humphrey protege.

[no name no slogan]

26. So did most of the Senate,

except for one member. Remeber, there was a massive amount of disinformation surrounding the Gulf of Tonkin resolution-- the administration had stated that US ships had been attacked by the North Vietnamese in the gulf, and used this as a basis for the US to elevate hostilities.

However, history has proven this attack never took place, and was an embellished story used by the administration to get congress to support greater US involvement in Indochina. Much like the IWR and the Bush admin last fall.

[Taxi Driver]

29. So why the attacks on Dean for supporting the Kossovo War? n/t

[TLM]

74. Because they can't defend Clark's bombing of civilians...

so they have to try and attack Dean to change the subejct.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Padraig18]

30. *Clark* didn't kill ANYONE!

NATO bombs killed civilians, to be sure, but CLARK didn't personally drop every bomb. :eyes:

[stickdog]

40. Clark doesn't kill people. Clark's underlings kill people. (NT)

[Padraig18]

46. Clinton, Schroeder, Chirac, Blair, et al's underlings killed people

Nice ad hominem attack, dude. Never let facts get in the way of a good bash.:eyes:

[TLM]

77. Once again... did Clinton order the bombing of civilian targets?

Did clinton designate targets or did the field commander, Clark, do that?

Still waiting for an answer.

[stickdog]

79. I agree.

And it wasn't an ad hominem attack. It was the truth as directly relates to the thread.

[Padraig18]

93. That's the height of intellectual dishonesty

Clark was SACEUR, and the war was NOT carried out according to HIS wishes; the *facts* (should you trouble to acquaint yourself with them) are that the air war was a NATO civilian command decision passed on as an order to Gen. Clark. Gen. Clark's preferred plan involved a combined air/ground attack one of whose specific objectives was to minimizing civilian casualties!

I often find reading with comprehension and critical thinking abilities to be far more useful than defamamtory, ad hominem attacks. Care to try it some time? :eyes:

[stickdog]

146. Is this clear?

When it comes to bullshit wars:

Hitler is worse than Bush.

Bush is worse than Clinton.

Clinton is worse than Clark.

Clark is worse than Dean.

Dean is worse that Kucinich.

Kucinich is worse than the Dalai Lama.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

149. totally and utterly wrong

"When it comes to bullshit wars: Hitler is worse than Bush. Bush is worse than Clinton. Clinton is worse than Clark. Clark is worse than Dean. Dean is worse that Kucinich. Kucinich is worse than the Dalai Lama."

That's just silly. "When it comes to bullshit wars" Dean makes speeches, Clark makes war, Clinton made speeches, Kucinich makes speeches, but at least is consistent.

Clark is a politician just like Dean and Kerry and Bush and Edwards. He just did it through the military, instead of by being a career politician, or a corporate CEO, of some celebrity.

Clark embodies the US empire, and he's smart enough and liberal enough to explain it to the American people so they wake up long enough to figure out what's going wrong.

Did you hear him today about Halliburton? He's talking about the MIC and taking it on.

Clark's no Kucinich, he's not pure, but Clark impresses me far more than Dean or Kerry.

Come to think of it Kucinich isn't so pure but I like him anyway. He's got my vote.

[JohnKleeb]

150. funny that you mentioned the Dalai Lama

Kucinich met him fairly recently I heard.

[TLM]

75. Clark was the commander who ordered bombings...

So yeah Clark did kill those people in exactly the same sense that a mob boss kills people by ordering a hit.

CLark defended his choice to bomb journalists...

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

Clark's logic is exactly the same as that of the death squad commander who orders the assassination of a journalist or a publisher whose opposition newspaper supports the goals of a guerrilla movement. The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia.

[SWPAdem]

31. That is like saying that all Democrats are baby killers

The decision to wage an air war was made by Clark's superiors. Furthermore, YOUR candidate is on the record as having supported the actions taken by NATO. Please read the instructions to your mouth before inserting foot.

[TLM]

80. The decision to wage an air war was not Clark's....

However the decision to bomb civilian targets was.

Unless you claim the commander was ordered to bomb civilians targets by the CIC... is that your claim?



And stop trying to hide Clarks war crimes behind Dean. Dean supported actions to put a stop to the ethnic slaughter... not the bombing of civilains.

[SWPAdem]

91. Were you in the daily briefings?

If not, then you cannot say definitively that Clark ordered anything. NATO was found innocent of war crimes by the UN. Unless you wish to become the little boy that cried wolf, I suggest that you stop the use of that term.

[TLM]

107. LOL! Just pathetic....

One can safely assume that the bombing going on under Clark's command took place at his orders... unless you claim his men were out bombing on their own against his orders, in which case the man is hardly worthy of those stars on his chest.

I can say Clark openly defended his choice to attack civilians and journalists...

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.



and that Clark ordered the brits to attack the russian forces.

From The Guardian, Tuesday August 3, 1999:

"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital. - Robertson's plum job in a warring Nato

No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the west's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if Nato's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the cold war.

[SWPAdem]

109. Again, for the reason impaired

THE UN FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF WAR CRIMES. PERIOD.

[TLM]

129. Killing journalist is a war crime,

And CLark did exactly that, and defended it.


You say that there's no evidence, yet when i site Clarks own words defending a war crime, you suddenly resort to the argument that he wasn't found guilty.

Well Bush hasn't been found guilty either, netiher has Henry Kissigner... doesn't mean they never commited war crimes.

Do you deny that killing journalists is a war crime?

Do you deny Clark kiled intentionaly journalists and then defended his actions?

[Taxi Driver]

32. Do you have a source?

Or are we supposed to just believe what you say?

Last time Clark checked he saved thousands of innocent children from a genocidal Communist.

[TLM]

88. Nope Clark's bombing didn't save anybody...

80% of those ethnicly cleansed were killed AFTER the NATO action started.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Yet once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. Howard Dean supported killing thousands of innocent children in Kosovo!

Howard Dean sat in Vermont and cheered while thousands of innocent children were killed in Kosovo! Why does Dean support the murder of innocent children?

[Taxi Driver]

37. Do you have a source for the "thousands of innocent children killed"? n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

53. sarcastic response to "deaniebopper"'s accusations against Clark

*obviously*

[stickdog]

42. Bankrupt argument.

Clark has proved himself willing to personally effect any crime, no matter how heinous.

Dean "supported" a couple of Clark's crimes as a Democrat. Meanwhile, Clark supported several of Chimpy's crimes as a Republican wannabe.

Who is worse, again?

[Tinoire]

48. They're both bad. Innocent people died.

There were Democrats who spoke out against this- Kucinich for one.

When it comes to war, I am like Kucinich, there is no such thing as party loyalty because both parties have enabled.

The PNAC cancer is eating away at both parties... Look at Levin's recent statements about Syria. Lieberman. Clinton and the 8 years of obscene sanctions against Iraq. Stickdog, google Albright + Berger + OSU + Iraq to get really sick about how Clinton was ready to start the war against Saddaam but backed down because there was a huge out-cry. I liked Clinton as a man but the more I research about how far the PNAC disease has spread, the more disillusioned I get.

I am really nauseated over the morally bankrupt state our politicians are in :(

Read my post 39 here- everyone who supported that war is guilty in my book and my aim is to get someone in the White House who will have the back-bone to say NO to the MIC and to the war-mongerers of this world:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=478777#479230

Peace

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

50. Fine, say the same with Clinton, and make sure you compare Dean

to the Nazi party members that KNEW what was going on, SUPPORTED IT, and DID NOTHING TO STOP IT.

Talk about a bankrupt argument, stickdog.

[stickdog]

76. I do. Except that the other fucking Party is even worse.

The SS was worse than a Nazi Party member.

And Pol Pot was worse than Hitler.

Yes, they are all bad.

However, Clinton at least had a REASON to bomb Kosovo -- even if I disputed it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

96. are you serious????

"However, Clinton at least had a REASON to bomb Kosovo -- even if I disputed it."

I see, so Clinton had a reason to order Clark to bomb, but Clark didn't have a reason to do the bombing?

Is it easy to talk out of both sides of your mouth?

[Tinoire]

106. Hey my friend- Clinton had no reason to bomb Kosovo

It was nothing more than another war for Big Business :(

Everyone knew there were no mass graves. This was Soros' and Albright's war... The same woman who stated that half a million dead Iraqi children were worth it. Soros now controls the Trepca mines and Albright still parades herself on TV as if someone were holding a small turd under her nose.

The war against Yugoslavia (because it was much more than Kosovo which is just media spin- that war went all the way to Belgrade!) was again for destabilization and oil- just like Iraq... Part 1 of the PNAC plan. IMO, Yugoslavia was the beginning of WWIV.

Check this out:


The Interstate Oil and Gas Transport to Europe (INOGATE) provides an illuminating Perspectives Map. The Perspectives Map matched with current and projected US and European military movements puts an interesting light on the destruction of the former Yugoslavia, the entry into NATO of some unlikely members, the pounding of oil drums from Bush and Blair, and the change in the Pentagon's view of peacekeeping. Like varicose veins that mar the skin, bright red and dark green lines indicating pipelines and energy flows are drawn over the whole of Europe, Scandinavia, Central Asia, Northern Africa, the Middle East and Persian Gulf--including Israel and Cyprus. New NATO entrants Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have key ports for shipping energy products. The Constanza-Omisalj oil pipeline project involving Romania, Yugoslavia and Croatia seems a nice, if coincidental, benefit of US and NATO action back under the Clinton Administration.

Twenty-one countries have signed the INOGATE Umbrella Agreement which simply means that they will do whatever it takes to minimize risk to investors. What better way to do that than have the US or NATO forces in-country (and buy their weapons and products), or have a regime that brutally suppresses dissent and ensures that the investor's risk is minimal. And after a look at the Perspectives Map, it's clear why Bush appointees in the Pentagon wiped-out the term "Peacekeeping Operations" and opted for "Stability Operations". A nice tip-of-the-hat to the oil, natural gas and banking and investment communities.
Now, API members no longer need to hire host nation security forces because they now have in their employ the US Armed Services to handle pesky locals who complain about low wages, poor living conditions, hunger, destruction of their environment, and their own governments who--bought by the US and Europeans-- sell off the wealth of their nations at ridiculously low prices. Does that really make America stronger?
http://www.counterpunch.org/stanton02272003.html


While the red army beat back Hitler's attempt to cross the Caucuses in order to get to the oil fields on the Caspian Sea beaten back by the Red Army, the United States has gotten there through Turkey's back door.

The stakes: colonization of eight former Soviet republics with a combined population of 75 million and especially, the huge oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Sea area, with countless billions in profits for Chevron, Exxon, Amoco, etc.

Details of U.S. plans, centered around oil and gas pipelines, were spelled out by Stephen Kinzer's Jan. 24 New York Times dispatch from Istanbul. The specific strategic aim: to pump out the oil and gas without crossing Russian territory.

<snip>

Kinzer added that Russia and Iran view these steps as part of a 'plan to establish American hegemony over the Caspian.'

And U.S. diplomats confirm their fears. 'We are at the beginning of a massive oil boom,' said Stanley Escudero, ambassador to Azerbaijan.

'It means that Azerbaijan and this whole region are about to emerge as major players in the world energy game, and also as a vitally important area in the whole world.'

<snip>

Existing pipelines all end up at Russian ports on the Black Sea or go through other 'Soviet' territory to Bulgaria and Romania. Washington wants to change this and build a roundabout pipeline that avoids 'Soviet' territory and terminates at a Turkish Black Sea port.

The Clinton administration is lobbying intensely for a route from Azerbaijan across Georgia and Turkey to the Mediterranean that would tie Azerbaijan and Georgia to the West and be a boon to Turkey, a key NATO ally. Apparently a report some months ago that the oil companies had acceded to administration demands was premature.

The proposed route would be technically difficult and take a long time to complete. It would be expensive, and the oil companies are demanding adequate U.S. funding to cover the costs. They also want the United States to stop its hostility and embargo against Iran, as the most efficient pipelines would run through Iran.

<snip>

http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990710perlooil.htm

[stickdog]

144. OK. What I meant was that Clinton at least had the "fig leaf" of stopping

genocide.

As well as the support of NATO.

I fundamentally agree with everything you said.

I still think the Iraq War was even more heinous simply because the "War on Terror" gave Bush the gall to actually CODIFY the policy of pre-emptive warfare.

Yes, we've been doing the same thing forever, but in my lifetime, we never acted like we were proud of our trillion dollar globalist mafia protection racket until Bush came along.

I know that slick force kills just as dead as brute force and can sometimes even be more nefarious. It's just a good cop/bad cop game to the PNACers. However, Dean drew the line at Iraq. Dean has an army of active, grassroot anti-war activists to answer to. Dean has a realistic chance to win. And Dean's campaign model has a realistic chance at propelling candidates even better than Dean in the future, especially if it is successful for Dean.

Now, someone tell me why I should even put that much hedged faith in Clark.

[stickdog]

81. That's EXACTLY what I'm saying.

But, still, all things are relative.

And the SS was worse than the average Nazi Party member.

[SWPAdem]

52. What crimes, Stickdog?

We want to see HARD evidence of REAL crimes, Stickdog. Unfortunately for you, failing to change your voter's registration in a timely manner or having engaged in diplomacy at a Repug fundraiser (negated by later campaigning for DEMS) is not a part of the penal code, and will mean JACKSHIT to the vast majority of Americans.

Also, sitting on the board of an organization does not imply criminal activity, either. So, lets see some FACTS, actual proof of involvement in criminal activities.

[stickdog]

84. Lobbying for CAPPS II and other Motherland Security crap is a crime

against freedom.

Fuck Clark until one of you steps up to the plate to defend this shit.

[SWPAdem]

111. Being a lobbyist for Axciom is not a crime, either

Unless you have some proof that Clark actually infringed on American's right to privacy.

[TLM]

133. Not a crime... but only because the patriot act makes it leagal now

to do what Clark helped Axciom to do.


But are you OK with Clark being a corporate lobbyist and a lobbyist for kissinger?

I thought he was supposed to be a democrat?

[stickdog]

147. CAPPS II is a fucking crime against the Bill of Rights, privacy, good

public policy and common sense.

If you think otherwise, please present your case.

[TLM]

108. Bombing journalists is a war crime...

and Clark not only did it, but defended it.

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

Clark's logic is exactly the same as that of the death squad commander who orders the assassination of a journalist or a publisher whose opposition newspaper supports the goals of a guerrilla movement. The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia.

[SWPAdem]

124. Then why didn't the UN find NATO guilty?

WHY?

[TLM]

132. Because you have to have a trial to find someone guilty...

and the UN didn't even do an investigation into these incidents. They wanted to focus on Milosevic, much like there has been no war crimes investigation for actions in Iraq. Doesn't mean there were not war crimes. Targeting and killing journalists is a war crime, and Clark admits he did just that.

The lack of a UN trial does this change the fact that Clark bombed a TV station, killing civilians and jounalists. And it doesn't change the fact he admitted to doing so and even defended it as a reasonable action.

[Padraig18]

134. Perhaps the UN *agreed* with Gen. Clark

It's entirely possible, you know? :eyes:

[Padraig18]

54. You toss the term 'crime' about quite casually.

Crimes require EVIDENCE and PROOF. Where is your evidence AND proof that *Clark* commited any crime whatsoever? Citations, sources, etc., please.

[stickdog]

87. Clark lobbied for CAPPS II and other Motherland Security crap.

What more do you want?

[Padraig18]

103. An actual answer to the question asked would be nice, for starters.

Where is your PROOF AND/OR EVIDENCE that *Clark* is a war criminal/ Sources, citations, etc..

On edit:

YOUR POST:

stickdog (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-06-03 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #35

42. Bankrupt argument.


Clark has proved himself willing to personally effect any crime, no matter how heinous.

Dean "supported" a couple of Clark's crimes as a Democrat. Meanwhile, Clark supported several of Chimpy's crimes as a Republican wannabe.

Who is worse, again?



MY RESPONSE:

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-06-03 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #42

54. You toss the term 'crime' about quite casually.

Edited on Mon Oct-06-03 02:07 PM by Padraig18
Crimes require EVIDENCE and PROOF. Where is your evidence AND proof that *Clark* commited any crime whatsoever? Citations, sources, etc., please.



---Just to refresh your memory.

[TLM]

110. I have provided this information several times over and you ignore it.

Clark defends the war crime of targeting and killing journalists...


Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

Clark's logic is exactly the same as that of the death squad commander who orders the assassination of a journalist or a publisher whose opposition newspaper supports the goals of a guerrilla movement. The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia.


THe bombings were of civilian centers to inflict economic damage. ANd the war fialed to stop the slaughter of the Kosovans or significantly damage serb forces.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html


A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Y et once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

Nato does not dispute the Serb claim that just 13 of its tanks were destroyed in Kosovo - a figure which gives an altogether different meaning to the concept of proportionality. Nato fought a military campaign from the air which failed to achieve its stated objectives.

[Padraig18]

115. It is your *opinion* that this is a war crime

Opinion is not *proof*, and yes, you have stated your opinion repeatedly.

[stickdog]

148. All you Clarkies do is practice sophistry and play semantical games.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=crime

Main Entry: crime
Pronunciation: 'krIm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin crimen accusation, reproach, crime; probably akin to Latin cernere to sift, determine
Date: 14th century
1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law
2 : a grave offense especially against morality
3 : criminal activity <efforts to fight crime>
4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful <it's a crime to waste good food.

Do you see #2 and #4?

Clark's lobbying for CAPPS II was a grave offense against morality.

Clark's lobbying for CAPPS II was reprehensible, foolish and disgraceful.

If you feel otherwise, let's hear why.

[Evanstondem]

43. Bullshorts

Where do you get your misinformation? The murdering was being done by Milosevic!

[Tinoire]

49. When all is said and done - ONLY A BRAVE FEW DARE SAY NO

to the MIC. It takes an immense amount of moral courage and this is the reason I am supporting Kucinich.

[gully]

51. Howard Dean didn't know thousands of innocent children were dying

in Kosovo. Read Clark's book "waging modern war" it talks about controlling the media.

[Tinoire]

63. You're right about the media but the news was out there

I was constantly in the streets and there were plenty of protests and many people jailed. International Action Center was in full gear back then also but because of the media's compliance and because we weren't quite as with our internet communications, a lot of normal people were unaware of what was going on. I do believe that Dean and every other Democratic candidate knew what was going on.

If I knew, why didn't they? And if they didn't know, why not and can we trust them. I am not knocking any candidate with my statement there- it's just my statement of principal and the one I use to examine each of them.

http://zoysia.uml.edu/archives/peace/0275.html

[gully]

116. Your right about the news being 'out there'

but 'out there' is right. I honestly had no idea there was a controversy over the war. I was busy with my life, and trusted Clinton and co. to do the right thing. I know that's 'bad' but that's the facts.

Governor Dean was busy Governing Vermont KWIM? I am sure at the time there was conflicting information. But, as I learned in recent years, we don't see the whole story on MSNBC. I am sure many others in congress also had much to tend to, they put their trust in Clinton and his staff as well? They heard reports of civilian death sure, but again it happens in every war.

I dont like the idea of 'targeting' civilians however. And, I don't like the idea of war period.

Also, honestly, I am still not convinced anything out of the ordinary happend in Kosovo. War is ugly, always has been, always will be.

Tiniore, I appreciate your input given your backround. Thanks.

[Tinoire]

139. Awww Gully

It's always a pleasure and always a pleasure to discourse with you.

To be frank, I learned more about this war in Europe than I did in the states because their press, especially the German press, doesn't mince words or hem or haw-- they show you the pictures and they're appalling. Plus, Germany was hit with a lot of refugees so of course people asked why this was happening. You also pay more attention to wars and the threat of nuclear devastation when you live on the same continent.

Whatever and however, I am really happy that for this war we're all saying NO!

Did anything really out of the ordinary happen in Kosovo? Probably not because war is murderous hell everywhere and there's no such thing as a gentleman's war.

I yearn for the civilized day when we will have a Department of Peace because we can't go on like this- not with all these new technologies that decimate so indiscriminately.

Peace :) and thanks

[maha]

66. Oh, I'm sure.

And I get up and sharpen my teeth every morning, hoping I can find an unguarded baby so I can eat it.

[boxster]

56. Save your breath, guys. deaniebopper likely has no plans

to bother to justify that statement. It's the hit-and-run tactic. Make an unsubstantiated, asinine claim to induce a flamewar, then move on to the next post.

I see a pattern forming.

[TLM]

61. YOu are the one being deceptive here...status quo

"Dean, who has been mischaracterized as the reincarnation of George McGovern, is certainly no traditional liberal or even a traditional dove. "I told the peace people not to fall in love with me," he told me over breakfast in Manchester, N.H., last week. He said he had opposed Vietnam, but he had supported the first Gulf War, the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo,


So where is the part where Dean says he supported CLark bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure? Are you actualy trying to defend Clark's bombing of journalists and civilians by saying Dean supported the act of intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo? So supporting any military action is the same as supporting bombing civilians and journalists?


"and the war in Afghanistan. In the 1980s he had "mixed feelings" about Ronald Reagan's support for the contras in Nicaragua and opposed a unilateral nuclear freeze. "I'm not a pacifist. I believe there are times when pre-emptive force is justified, but there has to be an immediate threat, and there just wasn't in this case."

"Dean is being deceptive here - there was NO immediate threat to the US in Gulf War I,"


No, you are being deceptive, because the attack in gulf war I wasn't pre-emptive, it was reactionary.


Dean said, "I believe there are times when pre-emptive force is justified, but there has to be an immediate threat, and there just wasn't in this case." Not that he is against any US action taken when there is not a direct threat to the US.

Why must you spin like this to try and cover Clark's war crimes?



"there was NO immediate threat to the US in Nicaragua, and there was NO threat to the US in Bosnia and Kosovo, so obviously that is not really his criteria."

That's his criteria for PRE-EMPTIVE military action. Take of your Clark colored glasses when you read.

[Padraig18]

64. Again, the word "crime" is tossed about recklessly

Where is the evidence and proof that *Clark* committed a-n-y war crime?

[TLM]

114. I've posted it at least a dozen times....

and several times in this thread...

Clark openly defended ordering the bombing of TV station, killing journalists and civilians.

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

Clark's logic is exactly the same as that of the death squad commander who orders the assassination of a journalist or a publisher whose opposition newspaper supports the goals of a guerrilla movement. The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia.

[Padraig18]

130. That is a *journalist's OPINION*

What part of the word 'opinion' is so confusing to you?:eyes:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

71. Why does your candidate want Clark as VP, TLM?

Are you going to be disappointed with "anti-war" Dean when he picks Clark for VP? Probably not, as soon as the threat to Dean is fixed, I'm sure Clark's war crimes will be forgiven, yes?

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[Padraig18]

78. Have you noticed?

Notice how people freely toss out 'war crimes' and 'war criminal' in reference to Gen. Clark, yet consistently ignore any demand for proof or evidence? I am FOR Gov. Dean, but even he doesn't make such ludicrous and defamatory assertions! I could jackslap the Dean supporters who think they are in ANY way 'helping' the governor by bringing up this baseless crapola! :grr:

[Capn Sunshine]

82. Really, there is much more crapola that is true we should use!

But I digress. He's not a bad man. Just a bad candidate.
Unless he's running for VP.
He IS isn't he?

[Padraig18]

90. There are several issues we could argue about

But I find it contemptible that my fellow supporters should resort to such cheap, base canards. *sigh* The old saying applies: "You can sling shit without getting it on yourself FIRST."

[TLM]

117. More of this meme...

Criticizing Clark makes (insert candidate here) look bad.


I have posted proof of Clark’s war crimes over and over, you simply choose to ignore it.

[Padraig18]

118. You have posted your *opinion* repeatedly

Not to crush your ego, but your opinion does not constitute proof, guy.

[TLM]

122. As I said, you ignore the repeated posting of sources and facts

Now care to explain how these are just my opinions?



Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Y et once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

Nato does not dispute the Serb claim that just 13 of its tanks were destroyed in Kosovo - a figure which gives an altogether different meaning to the concept of proportionality. Nato fought a military campaign from the air which failed to achieve its stated objectives.

[Padraig18]

126. Again, 'conclusory', NOT evidentiary OR proven.

It is YOU who ignore realities, my friend. "War crimes" fall specifically under the jurisdiction of the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague; I am QUITE sure they are aware of what has occurred in Kosovo, since they have Milosevic on trial for HIS war crimes there (and elsewhere), and I am also certain that had Gen. Clark committed 'war crimes' he would also be in the criminal dock.

You can put a dress on a pig, but it doesn't make it a pretty girl, as they say here.

[TLM]

119. From what I saw in LA, talking with some of the campaign folks...

Dean is not going to pick Clark for VP, for a lot of these reasons.

Some of his campaign folks were real excited about Clark and recommended him as a VP pick, but Dean was not very warm to the idea and wanted to wait.

At this point if Dean does pick Clark, for VP, I'll still vote for Dean, but I will be very disappointed.

And Clark's war crimes will not be forgiven... he'll have to spend the rest of his life working to serve and help people if he is to have any hope of atonement.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

121. as long as Clinton is held responsible as well

I'm not interested in more Enron style justice - Fastow goes to jail while Ken Lay walks free - no way. The buck stops at the top.

If Clark committed war crimes (even though the UN said he didn't) because of bombing targets, Clinton should be held responsible, along with every one of Clark's superiors, for ordering the war crimes. Nobody believes that Clark decided to bomb the TV stations and Chinese embassy on his own.

[TLM]

127. Please post the facts that Clinton picked targets...

Please cite the source you have to support that "Nobody believes that Clark decided to bomb the TV stations and Chinese embassy on his own."


Clark was ordered to wage an air war, however at what point did Clinton order the bombing of the TV station, embassy, water treatment plant, market place, residential areas, hospital and schools?

If you have a source that Clinton ordered these specific targets to be bombed, rather than simply giving an overall order that Clark then used to justify his orders to bomb civilians, please let me know.

I find it odd that Clark would be kicked out on his ass for his performance in Kosovo, if his actions were fully supportered or ordered by Clinton.

But I'm sure you have a source, so please cite it.

[Padraig18]

123. Will you be in The Hague?

You seem to be quite the definitive authority on the subject of Clark's 'war crimes', and I'm sure the International War Crimes Tribunal needs your help, seeing as how they seem unaware of his having committed any. :eyes:

[SWPAdem]

128. If these "war crimes" were really such an ethical issue with you

then you would not vote for a hypothetical Dean/Clark ticket. Game, set, MATCH.

[maggrwaggr]

125. Can we all agree: WAR IS BAD

Nobody wants war. Nobody wants violence. But if it takes violence to end an ongoing act of violence, most people would be for it.

If you're a "turn the other cheek" pacifist, well that's another story.

Fact of the matter is, if I see somebody beating up some little old lady on the street, and I have the power to stop it, I'm gonna stop it.

It's a crime to do nothing in that case.

It would have been a bigger crime to let Milosevic continue killing thousands of innocent people just because they were Muslim.

Is that too hard to agree on?

[Evanstondem]

136. I agree

Unfortunately, there are times that not going to war even worse than going to war.

A million people in Rwanda would agree with you if they were still alive to see your comments.

[gully]

131. Kucinich supported the war in Kosovo as well.

Interesting read here.

http://www.progressive.org/kuc899.htm

"Each new report of Serb attacks on Kosovo tugged at my heart and caused an anger to rise within me. I imagined how I'd feel if it was my family being attacked, my children routed from their homes, my brothers and sisters led to slaughter.

I sent letters and made a series of late night calls from my Washington office and from my home in Cleveland to the State Department and to the White House to ask for action to head off a wider catastrophe."

He eventually had a change of heart (as you'll read later in the article) he did not agree with how the war was carried out.

*I think initially supporting the war does not mean you support bombing/targeting civilians?

[Evanstondem]

135. Thanks for this post

I don't understand what Kucinich wanted to do instead of bombing -- TALK the Serbs out of Kosovo?

[gully]

138. I think he resented the targeting of civilians.

:shrug: War is ugly no matter what...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

140. ground troops, like Clark wanted?

"TALK the Serbs out of Kosovo" - who said that? Kucinich? Nope, you did. Is that your solution - talk the Serbs out of Kosovo?

[Evanstondem]

141. Do you understand the meaning of "rhetorical question"?

What WAS Kucinich in favor of doing in Kosovo. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong, and he wanted to do more than talk about it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

142. of course you're wrong

From what I've read here, Dennis supported action to stop the ethnic cleansing, and when we started bombing civilians, he came out against it.
:)

[JohnKleeb]

145. and theres nothing wrong with that

I hate Milosevic and like Dennis opposed the bombing.

[Evanstondem]

152. I hope we can agree to disagree on this

In my opinion, this war was worth fighting, even at the cost of some civilian lives. If there was less destructive way of accomplishing the mission I would like to hear about it.

[dsc]

151. Kuwait was an ally

and we have the right to help allies. Of course you should know that.